Most great composers influence each other, just as great tennis players learn from each other.
Mozart certainly learned much from Haydn, just as Hoad learned much from Kramer.
Mozart was profoundly influenced by Bach beginning in 1781 or thereabout, as evidenced by his own compositions, and borrowed a theme from Handel's Messiah (which Mozart orchestrated) for his Requiem.
Nothing wrong with this.

Click to expand...

Dan, The point is that I claim that Haydn only reached a certain level after having learnt from Mozart.

Who´d be the modern Frank Sedgman? maybe John Newcombe? both had tremendous FH volleys and great net coverage.

Click to expand...

Incidentally, Newcombe was not the only player to beat both Emerson and Gimeno at Wimbledon.
There were at least two others who did the same.
One was Laver, the other was Ramanathan Krishnan (in 1960 over Gimeno and 1961 over Emerson).
This puts Bedard's achievement into perspective (he beat Krishnan, Emerson, and Osuna in important matches.)

I understand you may not like the classic serve and volley game, but even Ken Rosewall came in on most of his first serves on a fast surface.

There are different ways to enjoy tennis.Now, Rosewall I always enjoyed many aspects of his game, which somewhat can be called as unique.But that does not mean I can appreciate some patterns from Stolle or from Emerson.

I understand you may not like the classic serve and volley game, but even Ken Rosewall came in on most of his first serves on a fast surface.

There are different ways to enjoy tennis.Now, Rosewall I always enjoyed many aspects of his game, which somewhat can be called as unique.But that does not mean I can appreciate some patterns from Stolle or from Emerson.

Click to expand...

kiki, I blame Emerson and Stolle for their rather one-sided game. You are right that Rosewall sometimes played serve and volley but he was more versatile than his two compatriots. Laver and Rosewall were in their own league.

kiki, I blame Emerson and Stolle for their rather one-sided game. You are right that Rosewall sometimes played serve and volley but he was more versatile than his two compatriots. Laver and Rosewall were in their own league.

Click to expand...

Of course both are in a class apart
But Murray and Djoker are one sided too
Most current pros are

Of course both are in a class apart
But Murray and Djoker are one sided too
Most current pros are

Click to expand...

Kiki,

I beg to differ with Andy Murray. I think he's perhaps the most versatile player in tennis today. He has a huge first serve if he want to go for it. He's improved his second serve. He has a nice variety of spin and angles. He can drop shot very well. Brad Gilbert believes Murray may be the fastest man in tennis although Nadal and Djokovic may sustain it better over five sets. I think his volley is very good and he has good hands at the net. Of course he has one of the best returns in tennis with solid strokes on both sides.

Of course Murray often doesn't use all his skills but at least he has them.

I like Djokovic but it seems to me that he is not as versatile as Murray.

I beg to differ with Andy Murray. I think he's perhaps the most versatile player in tennis today. He has a huge first serve if he want to go for it. He's improved his second serve. He has a nice variety of spin and angles. He can drop shot very well. Brad Gilbert believes Murray may be the fastest man in tennis although Nadal and Djokovic may sustain it better over five sets. I think his volley is very good and he has good hands at the net. Of course he has one of the best returns in tennis with solid strokes on both sides.

Of course Murray often doesn't use all his skills but at least he has them.

I like Djokovic but it seems to me that he is not as versatile as Murray.

Click to expand...

Wether he can do all that or not doesn't matter because he doens't do it.

Wether he can do all that or not doesn't matter because he doens't do it.

Click to expand...

Flash,

You've seen him drop shot very effectively. You've seen the guy overpower top players in the past year when he often didn't do it in the past. You've seen the guy play super defensive tennis if need be. He does do it but sometimes he get carried away with one way. For example he has used the drop shot too much in the past and it has sometimes burnt him. All I'm saying is that he has all the shots imo unlike others who only have one game plan. Murray at least has the ability like Laver or many greats to change his game and win.

I couldn't say that about Agassi for example, great as he was. If Agassi was losing the only option he had was to play his own game better.

I beg to differ with Andy Murray. I think he's perhaps the most versatile player in tennis today. He has a huge first serve if he want to go for it. He's improved his second serve. He has a nice variety of spin and angles. He can drop shot very well. Brad Gilbert believes Murray may be the fastest man in tennis although Nadal and Djokovic may sustain it better over five sets. I think his volley is very good and he has good hands at the net. Of course he has one of the best returns in tennis with solid strokes on both sides.

Of course Murray often doesn't use all his skills but at least he has them.

I like Djokovic but it seems to me that he is not as versatile as Murray.

Hey Kiki,

Did you ever think of starting a John Newcombe thread?

Click to expand...

Keep on boards within 2 hrs and your command will be my order
You will have a Newcombe thread and granted your permission I may happen to mix up some Kodes in between and I probably wont be able to some mentions on a great marketing agentagent
Now I am getting home and my kid will be my owner for a while
You are right on Murray
The only comment TMF is right is my lack of interest in currenr game, which me follows very aporadically
If you want to open the Newk one, I will be a loyal poster:-o

I saw Don Giovannni in Prague last summer. An unusual but interesting production (with a young boy dressed all in white as Giovanni's soul leading him to hell at the end).

The others perhaps yes, but as much as I love Bruckner, I would not rank him above "the father of the symphony and the string quartet." Saint-Saens is okay.

Click to expand...

hoodjem, Thanks for your post. I think you are an intelligent man who offered great lists about tennis. So I only would be glad if you would be impressed by my four favourite composers, Schubert, Beethoven, Bach and Mozart.

Don Giovanni is one of only five or six operas which I am able to listen to. Most operas are too long for me and too superficial. The others are Fidelio, Die Zauberflöte, Carmen and Samson and Delilah.

I like that you accept Saint-Saens who is often blamed for eclecticism In fact S.-S. has proved that it's possible to write beautiful music also in 20th century (as also the Beatles have proved by the way).

Keep on boards within 2 hrs and your command will be my order
You will have a Newcombe thread and granted your permission I may happen to mix up some Kodes in between and I probably wont be able to some mentions on a great marketing agentagent
Now I am getting home and my kid will be my owner for a while
You are right on Murray
The only comment TMF is right is my lack of interest in currenr game, which me follows very aporadically
If you want to open the Newk one, I will be a loyal poster:-o

Click to expand...

Let's hope your Newk thread will spark some nice posts. Newcombe was certainly a great player and interesting to say the least.

He has a huge first serve if he want to go for it. He's improved his second serve. He has a nice variety of spin and angles. He can drop shot very well. Brad Gilbert believes Murray may be the fastest man in tennis although Nadal and Djokovic may sustain it better over five sets. I think his volley is very good and he has good hands at the net. Of course he has one of the best returns in tennis with solid strokes on both sides.

Of course Murray often doesn't use all his skills but at least he has them.

I like Djokovic but it seems to me that he is not as versatile as Murray.

Click to expand...

yeah, problem is murray doesn't use/display his versatility enough ... he rarely plays aggressively. I thought maybe he was going to turn over a new leaf after the semi vs federer @ the AO, but he went back to playing pusher tennis vs novak in the final ....

while he has better hands than novak @ the net, he comes in quite a bit lesser than him ....

Let's hope your Newk thread will spark some nice posts. Newcombe was certainly a great player and interesting to say the least.

Click to expand...

Many people think Newcombe was a one dimensional player.He was not.he had a sensational attacking FH, one of the best I´ve ever seen and could keep it up with an effective although not offensive BH ( he could chip and come in very well, tough).see the way he dismantled mighty Connors in the 75 AO.

He is very underrated at lobbing, but he could hit this shot with the best.He was clever and could switch tactics from day to day, because he was very strong menthally.

But of course, he had one of the best ever serves and a very good volley to back it up.

hoodjem, Thanks for your post. I think you are an intelligent man who offered great lists about tennis. So I only would be glad if you would be impressed by my four favourite composers, Schubert, Beethoven, Bach and Mozart.

Don Giovanni is one of only five or six operas which I am able to listen to. Most operas are too long for me and too superficial. The others are Fidelio, Die Zauberflöte, Carmen and Samson and Delilah.

I like that you accept Saint-Saens who is often blamed for eclecticism In fact S.-S. has proved that it's possible to write beautiful music also in 20th century (as also the Beatles have proved by the way).

Click to expand...

Surprisingly, we seem to share many of the same tastes. I would rank my composers:
1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Schubert
4. Des Prez
5. Machaut

I am a big fan of Sibelius, Bruckner, and Vaughan Williams also. I do appreciate some Mozart, but mostly only the late stuff--from K. 475 on. The earlier music seems immaculately composed but not very deep to me. Die Zauberflöte and Fidelio, and maybe Othello are about the only operas I can stand. Unfortunately, almost every time I go somewhere I can get tickets to a quality opera production, it is of La Boheme. So I have seen that maybe 20 times--unfortunately.

This summer I shall see Rossini's The Barber of Seville in Vienna. We shall see . . .

Haydn is a recent infatuation of mine. I almost like it that everyone under-rates him. I can thus discover many hidden, overlooked treasures in the symphonies, piano sonatas, string quartets, and piano trios. His work is rather subtle--no wild swings of emotional range (therefore little popularity).

hoodjem, Thanks for your post. I think you are an intelligent man who offered great lists about tennis. So I only would be glad if you would be impressed by my four favourite composers, Schubert, Beethoven, Bach and Mozart.

Don Giovanni is one of only five or six operas which I am able to listen to. Most operas are too long for me and too superficial. The others are Fidelio, Die Zauberflöte, Carmen and Samson and Delilah.

I like that you accept Saint-Saens who is often blamed for eclecticism In fact S.-S. has proved that it's possible to write beautiful music also in 20th century (as also the Beatles have proved by the way).

Click to expand...

Schubert can fit in as number 4.Bach,Beethoven and Mozart are the top three.for nº 4, there are others: List,Chopin,Mahler,Mendhelson,Ratchmaninoff and, of course, Tchaikovsky.

I would say that Mozart is the Borg of composers (both famous for achieving vast success and adulation at a young age), except that Mozart is renowned as being the most naturally talented/ingenious of composers, whereas Borg is renowned more for consistency not genius.

Surprisingly, we seem to share many of the same tastes. I would rank my composers:
1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Schubert
4. Des Prez
5. Machaut

I am a big fan of Sibelius, Bruckner, and Vaughan Williams also. I do appreciate some Mozart, but mostly only the late stuff--from K. 475 on. The earlier music seems immaculately composed but not very deep to me. Die Zauberflöte and Fidelio, and maybe Othello are about the only operas I can stand. Unfortunately, almost every time I go somewhere I can get tickets to a quality opera production, it is of La Boheme. So I have seen that maybe 20 times--unfortunately.

This summer I shall see Rossini's The Barber of Seville in Vienna. We shall see . . .

Click to expand...

hoodjem,

I cannot say something about Des Prez and Machaut. Too long away...

I love Beethoven because of his positive attitude, his ability to give pure joy. And his versatility. He masters so many styles. He can compose like Bach, like Schubert, like Mozart. He has written more great works than any other composer.

Schubert has written so many first-class songs plus several perfect symphonies, sonatas, quartetts.

I love Vaughan Williams's Fantasy on Greensleeves. That song is possibly the most melancholic song at all and maybe the best melody ever written...

I like Bruckner's 4th and 7th symphony.

Sibelius is great: Karelia Suite, Violin Concerto, Symphonies...

I especially love the fourth movement of his second symphony: great and deeply felt music!

I accept Mozart mostly only from KV 300 onwards with a few exceptions: 136, 250,183...

Haydn is a recent infatuation of mine. I almost like it that everyone under-rates him. I can thus discover many hidden, overlooked treasures in the symphonies, piano sonatas, string quartets, and piano trios. His work is rather subtle--no wild swings of emotional range (therefore little popularity).

Click to expand...

hoodjem, "not wild swings of emotional range": That's excatly why I cannot like Haydn. Music is at his best when giving deepest felt emotions...

I would say that Mozart is the Borg of composers (both famous for achieving vast success and adulation at a young age), except that Mozart is renowned as being the most naturally talented/ingenious of composers, whereas Borg is renowned more for consistency not genius.

Click to expand...

Phoenix, In my opinion Mozart is a bit overrated in comparison to Schubert, f.i.

Surprisingly, we seem to share many of the same tastes. I would rank my composers:
1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Schubert
4. Des Prez
5. Machaut

I am a big fan of Sibelius, Bruckner, and Vaughan Williams also. I do appreciate some Mozart, but mostly only the late stuff--from K. 475 on. The earlier music seems immaculately composed but not very deep to me. Die Zauberflöte and Fidelio, and maybe Othello are about the only operas I can stand. Unfortunately, almost every time I go somewhere I can get tickets to a quality opera production, it is of La Boheme. So I have seen that maybe 20 times--unfortunately.

This summer I shall see Rossini's The Barber of Seville in Vienna. We shall see . . .

Click to expand...

You might enjoy lesser known operas more.
When my wife and I went to Paris, we enjoyed the production of Le Roi Malgre Lui by Chabrier, at the Opera Comique, with the Orchestre de Paris in the pit, much more than the big budget production at the Bastille.
And at the Met in New York we enjoyed Nabucco more than Trovatore.
Expect the unexpected.
But in the end, Bach and Beethoven are the tops.

You might enjoy lesser known operas more.
When my wife and I went to Paris, we enjoyed the production of Le Roi Malgre Lui by Chabrier, at the Opera Comique, with the Orchestre de Paris in the pit, much more than the big budget production at the Bastille.
And at the Met in New York we enjoyed Nabucco more than Trovatore.
Expect the unexpected.
But in the end, Bach and Beethoven are the tops.

There is no point-by-point similarity here, other than relative stature.
The music list is top-weighted with Germans and Austrians, the tennis list with Australians and Americans.
The composers belong to an older era.

There is no point-by-point similarity here, other than relative stature.
The music list is top-weighted with Germans and Austrians, the tennis list with Australians and Americans.
The composers belong to an older era.

Click to expand...

Dan, Interesting double list.

There are two big missing men in your lists: Tilden and Schubert!

I confess that I don't like Debussy.

Yes, it's a phenomenon that the top classic composers were from Austria and Germany. Stravinsky is the only classic composer of your list who lived long enough to reach the great Australians in tennis. He died in 1971.

Yes, it's a phenomenon that the top classic composers were from Austria and Germany. Stravinsky is the only classic composer of your list who lived long enough to reach the great Australians in tennis. He died in 1971.

Click to expand...

Yes, many (including Philip Downs, author of Classical Music, who rates Wagner below Schubert) would put Schubert high.
I like his last four piano sonatas, the E flat Mass, and the String Quintet, but much of his music I find brooding and sad. Not my taste.
Debussy and Stravinsky were dominating influences, although I prefer Bartok, whose music has proven to have more staying power.

Tilden was brilliant, but I doubt that he was superior to Williams of 1914-16, and Allison Danzig claimed that Tilden played his absolute greatest match in the 1927 Forest Hills final against Lacoste, which he lost in straight sets.

One thing is artristry ( there haave been many extraordinary) and the other is genious: the ability to take things and leave them in another level before you took them.I talked about genious.

Click to expand...

ok some of the people I consider geniuses in that field of creativity:
composers (Beethoven, Mozart, etc.)
musicians (Led zep, george michael, pink floyd, jean michele jarre, tiesto, tupac, marvin gaye, a bunch of bulgarian musicians that you wouldn't know, etc. this is where i can go on and list a 100, i see geniuses in all types of music)

There is no point-by-point similarity here, other than relative stature.
The music list is top-weighted with Germans and Austrians, the tennis list with Australians and Americans.
The composers belong to an older era.